Go
to Original
By Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research
Sunday
01 October 2006
Editor's
Note: Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research
We
bring to the attention of our readers, this carefully documented
review of the ongoing naval build-up and deployment of coalition
forces in the Middle East.
The
article examines the geopolitics behind this military deployment
and its relationship to the Battle for Oil.
The
structure of military alliances is crucial to an understanding of
these war preparations.
The
naval deployment is taking place in two distinct theaters: the Persian
Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Both
Israel and NATO are slated to play a major role in the US-led war.
The
militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean is broadly under the
jurisdiction of NATO in liaison with Israel. Directed against Syria,
it is conducted under the façade of a UN peace-keeping mission
pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. In this context,
the war on Lebanon must be viewed as a stage of a the broader US
sponsored military road-map.
The
naval armada in the Persian Gulf is largely under US command, with
the participation of Canada.
The
naval buildup is coordinated with the planned air attacks. The planning
of the aerial bombings of Iran started in mid-2004, pursuant to
the formulation of CONPLAN 8022 in early 2004. In May 2004, National
Security Presidential Directive NSPD
35 entitled Nuclear Weapons Deployment Authorization was issued.
While its contents remains classified, the presumption is that NSPD
35 pertains to the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in the
Middle East war theater in compliance with CONPLAN 8022.
These
war plans must be taken very seriously.
The
World is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern
history. The US has embarked on a military adventure, a long war,
which threatens the future of humanity.
In
the weeks ahead, it is essential that citizens' movements around
the world act consistently to confront their respective governments
and reverse and dismantle this military agenda.
What
is needed is to break the conspiracy of silence, expose the media
lies and distortions, confront the criminal nature of the US Administration
and of those governments which support it, its war agenda as well
as its so-called Homeland Security agenda which has already defined
the contours of a police State.
It
is essential to bring the US war project to the forefront of political
debate, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Political
and military leaders who are opposed to the war must take a firm
stance, from within their respective institutions. Citizens must
take a stance individually and collectively against war.
The
probability of another war in the Middle East is high. Only time
will tell if the horrors of further warfare is to fully materialize.
Even then, the shape of a war is still undecided in terms of its
outcome.
If
war is to be waged or not against Iran and Syria, there is still
the undeniable build-up and development of measures that confirm
a process of military deployment and preparation for war.
The
diplomatic forum also seems to be pointing to the possibility of
war. The decisions being made, the preparations being taken, and
the military maneuvers that are unfolding on the geo-strategic chessboard
are projecting a prognosis and forecast towards the direction of
mobilization for some form of conflict in the Middle East.
In
this context, people do not always realize that a war is never planned,
executed or even anticipated in a matter of weeks. Military operations
take months and even years to prepare. A classical example is Operation
Overlord (popularly identified as "D-Day"), which resulted in the
Battle of Normandy and the invasion of France. Operation Overlord
took place on June 6, 1944, but the preparations for the military
operation took eighteen months, "officially," to set the stage for
the invasion of the French coast. It was during a meeting in Casablanca,
Morocco in January, 1943 that the U.S. President, F.D. Roosevelt,
and the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, outlined a strategy
to invade Normandy.[1]
With
regard to Iraq, the "Downing Street memo2" confirms that the decision
to go to war in 2003 was decided in 2002 by the United States and
Britain, and thus the preparations for war with Iraq were in reality
started in 2002, a year before the invasion. The preparations for
the invasion of Iraq took place at least a entire year to arrange.
[2]
The
period from 1991 to 2003 has seen continuous military operations
against Iraq by the Anglo-American alliance. This period that has
lasted for over a decade saw stages of heavy bombardment and major
air strikes on a crippled Iraqi republic and its citizens. In reality
the conditions for the groundwork and preparations of the invasion
and eventual occupation of Iraq took over ten years to materialize.
Iraq was weakened and its strength diluted within these ten years.
Even
prior to this decade of Anglo-American bombardment and U.N. sanctions,
Iraq was caught in an eight-year war with Iran in the 1980s. The
war between Iran and Iraq was also fuelled and organized by the
United States to weaken both. In retrospect the manipulation of
a war between Iran and Iraq to weaken both states seems to be strategic
planning in preparation for future military operations against them.
In this time preparations were also being made by securing the Balkans
for future Anglo-American operations. The Balkans is adjacent to
the Middle East and is also a geographic extension of the region.
Preparations were made by expanding NATO, shifting military bases
eastward, and securing energy routes. Dismantling the state of Yugoslavia
was also a part of this objective. Yugoslavia was the regional power
of the Balkans and Southeast Europe. This was done through close
coordination between the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. Now all
eyes are on Iran and Syria. Will there be another Anglo-American
initiated war in the Middle East?
Overview
of Naval Confrontation Against Iran
The
Pentagon has already drawn up plans for U.S. sponsored attacks on
Iran and Syria.[3] Despite the
public posturing of diplomacy by the United States and Britain,
just like the Iraq Invasion, Iran and Syria sense another Anglo-American
war in the horizon. Both countries have been strengthening their
defenses for the eventuality of war with the Anglo-American alliance.
A
conflict against Iran and Syria, if it were to materialize, would
be unlike previous Anglo-American sponsored conflicts. It would
be wider in scope, deadlier, and have active aerial and water (naval)
fronts.
Sea
power would be of greater significance than in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Lebanon. The United States would covet a quick victory.
The chances of this happening are unknown. If there were to be a
conflict with Iran, the United States and it partners would want
to keep the Straits of Hormuz open for the flow of international
oil. The Straits of Hormuz are the "energy lifeline of the world."
The
United States would without doubt quickly aim for the collapse of
the Iranian and Syrian commands and military structures.
It
must be noted that the Iranian Armed Forces are characterized by
well structured military organization, with advanced military capabilities,
when compared to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon. Moreover,
Iran has been preparing for a scenario of war with the Anglo-American
alliance for almost a decade. These preparations were stepped up
following the NATO-U.S. led attack on Yugoslavia (1999).
The
types of military units and weapons systems being deployed in the
Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by the United States are considered
to be best suited for combat against Iran, also with a view to keeping
the Straits of Hormuz open for oil tankers. This also includes forces
that would be able to secure bridgeheads on the Iranian coastline.
These U.S. forces consist of early warning units, recognizance,
amphibious elements, maritime search and rescue units, minesweepers,
and rapid deployment units.
US
Strike Groups: Cargo intended for War?
The
U.S.S. Enterprise a U.S. Navy flagship is under deployment to
the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. This includes all the warships
and vessels that compose Carrier Strike Group 12 (CSG 12) Destroyer
Squadron 2 (DESRON 2), and Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW 1). The stated
objective for the deployment of the U.S.S. Enterprise, a nuclear
powered aircraft carrier, and other U.S. Navy vessels is to conduct
naval security operations and aerial missions in the region. The
deployment does not mention Iran, it is said to be part of the U.S.-led
"War on Terror" under "Operation Enduring Freedom."
|
 |
(Photo: Global Research)
|
|
|
Originally
the name for Operation Enduring Freedom was "Operation Infinite
Justice," which highlights the unlimited scope and intentions of
the War on Terror. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which envelops the
Anglo-American invasion and the continued occupation of Iraq is
also a component of these operations. A large number of U.S. warships
are deployed in the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Arabian
Sea.
While
this deployment is said to be related to ongoing military operations
in Iraq and Afghanistan, the warships are carrying with them equipment
which is not intended for these two war theaters. Minesweepers and
mine-hunters have absolutely no use in landlocked Afghanistan and
are not needed in Iraq which has a maritime corridor and ports totally
controlled by the Anglo-American alliance.
Other
warships in the Enterprise Strike Group include the destroyer U.S.S.
McFaul, the war frigate U.S.S. Nicholas, the battle cruiser U.S.S.
Leyte Gulf, the attack submarine U.S.S. Alexandria, and the "fast
combat support ship" U.S.N.S. Supply. The U.S.N.S. Supply will be
a useful vessel in confronting the Iranian forces in the Persian
Gulf in close-quarter combat. Speed will be an important factor
in responding to potentially lethal Iranian missile and anti-ship
missile attacks.
The
U.S.S. Enterprise carries with it a host of infiltration, aerial
attack, and rapid deployment units. This includes Marine Strike
Fighter Squadron 251, Electronic Attack Squadron 137, and Airborne
Early Warning Squadron 123. Squadron 123 will be vital in the event
of a war with Iran in detecting Iranian missiles and sending warnings
of danger to the U.S. fleet. Special mention should be made of the
helicopter squadron specialized for combating submarines traveling
with the strike group. "Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron 11" will
be on board the U.S.S. Enterprise. The Persian Gulf is known to
be the home of the Iranian submarine fleet, the only indigenous
submarine fleet in the region.
The
Eisenhower Strike Group, based in Norfolk, Virginia, has also received
orders to deploy to the Middle East. The strike group is led by
the U.S.S.
Eisenhower, another nuclear battleship. It includes a cruiser,
a destroyer, a war frigate, a submarine escort, and U.S. Navy supply
ships. One of these two naval strike groups will position itself
in the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea while the other naval strike
group will position itself in the Persian Gulf, both off the Iranian
coast.
|
|
|
(Photo: Global Research)
|
|
|
Another
Strike Group Performs Anti-Submarine Drills and Sets Sail for the
Persian Gulf
Another
assault or strike group of U.S. warships, "Expeditionary
Strike Group 5," are setting off to sea too. This strike group
is setting sail from Naval Station San Diego with the Persian Gulf
in the Middle East as their final destination. Over 6,000 U.S. Marines
and Navy personnel will be deployed to the Persian Gulf and Anglo-American
occupied Iraq from San Diego.[4]
Approximately 4,000 U.S. sailors and 2,200 U.S. Marines from the
15th Marine Expeditionary Unit at Camp Pendleton will make the bulk
of the force. The warships and the servicemen they carry will reportedly
have a tour of duty in the Persian Gulf and "possibly" Anglo-American
occupied Iraq for half a year. They will also be joined by other
ships including a Coast Guard vessel. A Marine air wing of 38 helicopters
also is on board and travelling to the Persian Gulf.
The
Marine contingent of the force is not destined for deployment in
Iraq. It must be noted that the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit is,
however, able to "rapidly deploy" on "order" using large landing
craft stowed aboard the strike group's warships. If ordered this
rapid deployment unit has the strong potential of being used as
part of an invasion force against Iran from the Persian Gulf. The
Marine unit would be ideal in being part of an operation with the
objective(s) of securing Iranian ports to create beachheads for
an invasion.
Expeditionary
Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) is being led by the assault ship the U.S.S.
Boxer as the flagship. Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (ESG 5) will
also consist of the U.S.S. Dubuque, a "dock landing vessel," the
naval transport ship the U.S.S. Comstock, the battle cruiser the
U.S.S. Bunker Hill, the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S.
Benfold, and the guided-missile hauling destroyer the U.S.S. Howard.
Once again, these vessels will all be deployed in the Persian Gulf,
in nearby proximity to the Iranian coast.
It
is noteworthy to mention that the command and control structure
of the group will be separated from the vessels for maximum flexibility.
Also before the U.S. Naval strike group reaches the Persian Gulf
it will be performing "anti-submarine drills and operations." The
anti-submarine exercises will take place off the coast of Hawaii,
in the Pacific Ocean. This can be training and preparation intended
for combating the Iranian submarine fleet in the Persian Gulf and
Arabian Sea. The warships will also be joined in Hawaii by Seattle-based
U.S. Coast Guard and by a Canadian navy frigate, the H.M.C.S. Ottawa.
Canada
Contributes to the American-Led Naval Build-Up in the Persian Gulf
The
Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper is actively
collaborating in this military endeavor.
Canadian
foreign policy has been steadily and successively militarized by
two successive governments.
The
government of Prime Minister Paul Martin (Liberal) implemented the
"three-dimensional policy" of the "3-Ds" ("Diplomacy", "Development,"
and "Defense), adding a military component to Canadian foreign aid
and development assistance.
The
3-Ds brought Canada into performing as more active role in U.S.-led
operations in NATO garrisoned Afghanistan. Despite the public protest,
Canada has become an integral member of the Anglo-American military
alliance.
Canada's
involvement is not limited to Afghanistan as suggested by the press
reports and official statements.
The
H.M.C.S. Ottawa has been dispatched to the Persian Gulf, leaving
in September, from British Columbia. Officially the H.M.C.S. Ottawa
is being deployed as part of Canada's contribution to fighting the
"War on Terrorism." The Canadian vessel is the first publicly known
ship to be deployed to the waters of the Middle East in about a
year.[5] The Canadian vessel is
slated to be fully integrated into Expeditionary Strike Group 5
(ESG 5), which will be seafaring in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf
of Oman, off the Iranian coast.
|
|
HMCS Ottawa
(Photo: Global Research)
|
|
|
The
Canadian Pacific Fleet vessel, the H.M.C.S. Ottawa, will be the
twentieth official Canadian naval deployment in support of the United
States and Britain in the War on Terrorism. About 225 personnel
will be on board the Canadian Navy ship, including a Sea King helicopter
detachment.[6]
While
the H.M.C.S. Ottawa is supporting the American-led war on terrorism,
it is also to participate in anti-submarine exercises off the coast
of Hawaii.
For
what purpose are these exercises being conducted? How many countries
in the Middle East or Persian Gulf have submarines? Iran is the
only country in the Persian Gulf, which is not an ally of the U.S.,
which possesses an indigenous submarine fleet.
US
Coast Guard Implicated in the Conflict with Iran
The
U.S. Coast Guard is the fifth and smallest branch of the U.S. Armed
Forces. The other four branches of the U.S. military are the U.S.
Marines, Navy, Air Force, and the Army. The U.S. Coast Guard is
unique in that it is a force that is one-third military, one-third
law enforcement, and one-third a maritime search and rescue entity.
In peacetime the U.S. Coast Guard falls under the jurisdiction and
mandate of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, but at the
Defense Department's request, the Coast Guard can operate under
military missions at sea. In a time of war when the need is urgent,
the U.S. Coast Guard falls under the direct jurisdiction of the
Pentagon as a military force.
The
U.S. Coast Guard is beginning to see more use and deployment with
the U.S. Navy. Coast Guards are being prepared for operations in
the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Although this is not an unusual
event by itself, it can be significant in relationship to other
events and military movements unfolding and taking place. The U.S.
Coast Guard will be of great value in the event of a conflict with
Iran. U.S. Coast Guard can "enter ports that other warships can
not."[7] This would be useful in
securing bridgeheads of entry for an invasion force into Iran. The
U.S. Coast Guard is also specialized in maritime search and rescue
operations, unlike the U.S. Navy or the Marines. This is significant
since it is predicted by military analysts that there will definitely
be U.S. vessels that will be destroyed and heavily damaged in the
Persian Gulf by the Iranian Armed Forces in the event of a conflict
between the United States and Iran. U.S. Coast Guard will be crucial
in rescue operations, besides speedy operations, protecting U.S.
Navy ships, and the entry of ports or shores which other warships
can not enter.
"What
we bring to the strike group is the ability to conduct intercepts
and maritime security operations," and, "The tools used to fight
crime and save lives at home [in the United States] are valuable
in the war zone [the Persian Gulf]," elucidates Lee Alexander the
commander of the U.S.S. Midgett[8]
Media
Reports of Planned Attacks on Iran and Syria
There
have been several reports in the international media, which have
provided details regarding the military plans to attack Iran and
Syria. These include reports from Israeli sources on attacks intended
for Syria, Iran, and Lebanon. Some of these media reports even quote
Members of the Israeli Knesset (MKs).[9]
The German and European media have published various articles on
possible NATO and Turkish involvement in the planned U.S. air strikes
on Iran. The Times (U.K.) reported in March, 2006 that:
"When
Major-General Axel Tüttelmann, the head of NATO's Airborne Early
Warning and Control Force, showed off an AWACs early warning surveillance
plane in Israel a fortnight ago, he caused a flurry of concern back
at [NATO] headquarters in Brussels. It was not his demonstration
that raised eyebrows, but what he said about NATO's possible involvement
in any future [Anglo-American] military strike against Iran. 'We
would be the first to be called up if the NATO council decided we
should be,' he said. NATO would prefer the emphasis to remain on
the 'if', but Tüttelmann's comments revealed that the military
alliance [NATO] could play a supporting role if America launches
air strikes against Iranian nuclear targets [including military
facilities, industrial locations, and infrastructure]." [10]
United
Press International (UPI) on December, 2005 reported that:
The
Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible
military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New
Year [2006], according to German media reports, reinforcing similar
earlier suggestions in the Turkish media.
The
Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week quoted NATO intelligence
sources who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that
the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of
bringing the mullah-led regime [Iranian government] into line, including
military options. This all options are open line has been President
George W. Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months.
But
the respected German weekly Der Spiegel notes What is new here is
that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to
prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying
the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year [2005].
The
German news agency DDP cited Western security sources to claim that
CIA Director Porter Goss asked Turkey's premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan
to provide political and logistic support for air strikes against
Iranian nuclear and military targets. Goss, who visited Ankara and
met Erdogan on Dec. 12 [2005], was also reported to have to have
asked for special cooperation from Turkish intelligence to help
prepare and monitor the operation.
(...)
DDP
cited German security sources who added that the Turks had been
assured of a warning in advance if and when the military strikes
took place, and had also been given a green light to mount their
own attacks on the bases in Iran of the PKK, (Kurdish Workers party),
which Turkey sees as a separatist group responsible for terrorist
attacks inside Turkey.[11]
The
"green light" given by the United States for Turkish military incursions
would in all likelihood also include Kurdistan, including at some
point Iraqi Kurdistan and Kurdish inhabited areas in Syria.
Time
Magazine and the "Prepare to Deploy Order" of the Eisenhower Strike
Group
The
latest U.S. reports provide details of preparations to go to war
with Iran and Syria. Time magazine confirms that orders have been
given for deployment of a submarine, a battleship, two minesweepers,
and two mine-hunters in the Persian Gulf by October 2006. There
are very few places in the world where minesweepers would be needed
or used besides the Persian Gulf. There also very few places where
anti-submarine drills are required , besides the Persian Gulf.
Anti-submarine
drills are what Expeditionary Strike Group 5 (EST 5) is performing
in the Pacific before it heads to the Persian Gulf, together with
Canada's H.M.C.S. Ottawa and units of the U.S. Coast Guard.
The
Time Magazine article intimates that the operation could
result in heavy American casualties.
"The
first message was routine enough: a 'Prepare to Deploy Order' sent
through naval communications channels to a submarine, an Aegis-class
cruiser, two minesweepers and two mine-hunters. The orders didn't
actually command the ships out of port; they just said be ready
to move by October 1 [2006]. A deployment of minesweepers to the
east coast of Iran would seem to suggest that a much discussed,
but until now largely theoretical, prospect has become real: that
the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."[12]
Award-winning
investigative reporter and journalist Dave Lindorff has written:
[Retired]
Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National
War College [of the United States], says that the [U.S. Navy] carrier
deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October
21 [2006] is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says,
{"I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to
deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready
to go as October 1 [2006]. Given that it would take about from October
2 to October 21 to get those forces to the [Persian] Gulf region,
that looks about like the date" of any possible military action
against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations,
and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date -
in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot
issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant
order, and it's not done as a training exercise." This point was
also made in the Time article.
(...)
I
think the plan's been picked: bomb the nuclear sites in Iran, says
[Colonel] Gardiner. It's a terrible idea, it's against U.S. law
and it's against international law, but I think they've decided
to do it. Gardiner says that while the United States has the capability
to hit those sites with its cruise missiles, the Iranians have many
more options than we [the United States] do.
(...)
Of
course, Gardiner agrees, recent ship movements and other signs of
military preparedness could be simply a bluff designed to show toughness
in the bargaining with Iran over its nuclear program. But with the
Iranian coast reportedly armed to the teeth with Chinese Silkworm
anti-ship missiles, and possibly even more sophisticated Russian
anti-ship weapons, against which the [U.S.] Navy has little reliable
defenses, it seems unlikely the Navy would risk high-value assets
like aircraft carriers or cruisers with such a tactic. Nor has bluffing
been a Bush [Administration] MO [tactic] to date.[13]
The
Pentagon responded to the Time magazine report by stating that the
Chief of Naval Operations had merely asked the U.S. Navy to "put
'fresh eyes' on old U.S. plans to blockade two Iranian oil ports
on the [Persian] Gulf."[14] This
response in itself is questionable to analysts. Why would the United
States want to stop the flow of oil from Iran, a major petroleum
exporting nation, which would harm U.S. allies and the world economy?
Iranian
Naval Force and Anti-Ship Missiles
Iranian
naval strength is divided into two main forces. One is the Navy
within the Iranian Regular Armed Forces and the other is the naval
branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Both forces have been
updating and improving their equipment over the years. The aim of
both naval forces is to act as a deterrent to the threat of invasion
or attack from the United States.
Iran
has a submarine fleet of Iranian and Russian manufactured submarines,
a hovercraft fleet that was once the largest in the world, ROVs
(remotely operated vehicles), various surface vessels of different
sizes and operations, naval airborne units which include several
helicopter squadrons, minesweepers, and a large arsenal of anti-ship
missiles. The Iranian submarine fleet also includes mini-submarines
manufactured domestically in Iran.[15]
Iran
has been going through a naval build-up in the last decade. For
example, in connection with the August 2006 Iranian war games and
exercises, the Iranian military displayed its latest "Patrol Torpedo
(PT) boats." PT boats are small naval vessels that have been used
effectively to attack larger warships. These types of ships could
be a threat to the U.S. strike groups deploying in the Persian Gulf
and Arabian Sea. Naval Commander Kouchaki told Fars News Agency
(FNA) that: "Joshan [a new Iranian PT boat] enjoys the world's latest
technology, specially with regard to its military, electrical and
electronic systems, frame and chassis, and it has the capabilities
required for launching powerful missiles." "Similar to Iran's first
PT boat 'Peykan', 'Joshan' also has a speed of over 45 sea knots
which makes it even faster than the same generation of PT boats
manufactured by other countries. The vessel is capable of using
various missiles and rockets with a range beyond 100 km [62.14 miles],
high maneuverability power that helps it to escape torpedoes, and
enjoys the most advanced sea shell of the world called 'Fajr'."
The 76mm-caliber shell, which only Iran, the United States, and
Italy can manufacture, of the new Iranian PT boat also enjoys a
wide variety of military capabilities and can hit sea and air targets
within the range of 19 km or 23 thousand feet in distance, respectively.[16]
Iran
has also tested a series of "submarine-to-surface" anti-ship missiles
during its August 2006 war games[17].
The latter seem to have raised some concern that Iran could disrupt
the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf in the event of an Anglo-American
assault.[18]
In
its April 2006 war games, Iran tested an anti-ship missile, reported
as "the world's fastest," with a top speed of approximately 362
kilometres per hour (km/h) or 225 miles per hour (m/h). The anti-ship
missile is designed to destroy large submarines and is said to be
too fast for most vessels to escape even if it is caught on their
radar.[19] Early warning systems
will be essential for the U.S. in combating the Iranian military.
If
storm clouds should gather above the Persian Gulf, the United States
will have to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, international oil
traffic running, and simultaneously face a large barrage of Iranian
missiles from land, air, and sea. This includes deadly Iranian anti-ship
missiles that Iran has developed with the help of Russia and China.
There
have been warnings by analysts that the Persian Gulf could be closed
off and turned into a shooting gallery by the Iranian Armed Forces.
Iranian weaponry is also reported to be invisible to radar and can
travel at high speeds. Amongst names mentioned in regards to Iranian
anti-ship missiles are the modified Russian and Chinese "Silkworms"
and "Sunburns," which are based on earlier Soviet models.
The
Iranian arsenal includes anti-ship missiles like the C-802 and Kowsar.
The C-802 anti-ship missiles are missiles that originate from China.
Kowsar anti-ship missiles are basically land-based anti-ship missiles
(land-to-sea missiles) which can dodge electronic jamming systems.[20]
At
this stage, it is impossible to say how the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast
Guard will perform against Iranian anti-ship missiles, in the context
of a "real combat situation."
Navy
and Troop Movements in the Eastern Mediterranean
There
is also considerable military movement and build-up of allied forces
in the Eastern Mediterranean, formally under the disguise of a peace-keeping
operation pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.
Italy
has redeployed Italian troops from Iraq, including commando units
and armored reconnaissance units, to Lebanon. Two marine units,
one belonging to the Italian Army and the other belonging to the
Italian Navy, have been sent to Lebanon. Both are veteran units
of separate tours of service in Anglo-American occupied Iraq. The
Italian Army has sent the "Lagunari" of the Venice-based marine
infantry unit the "Serenissima Regiment," while the Italian Navy
has sent the "San Marco Regiment."
Spanish
units and troops have been deployed near Tyre and the Israeli border
in South Lebanon. Spain, with two warships off the coast of Lebanon
is projected to have the third largest force from the E.U., after
Italy and France.[21] Large contingents
of Spanish troops are additionally based away from the Mediterranean
coast, around Jdeidet-Marjayoun (Marjayoun), near the Syrian border
and both the Sheba Farms and Golan Heights occupied by Israel.
German
warships will also join the vessels of other fellow NATO members
in patrolling the coasts of the Eastern Mediterranean. German will
eventually take over command of the naval forces from Italy. The
German government has launched battle frigates and fast patrol boats
to post-siege Lebanon.[22]
"The
naval mission, the first German deployment to the Middle East since
the end of the Second World War, was backed by 442 lawmakers, with
152 against and five abstentions. As many as 2,400 German [naval]
personnel will now be deployed to the region, backed by a one-year
mandate expiring August 31, 2007. The mission brings the number
of German soldiers [meaning servicemen] serving overseas to above
10,000 for the first time in postwar [meaning post-World War II]
history."[23]
The
coalition government of Denmark, formed by the Danish Conservative
People's Party and the Liberal Party of Denmark, has been a steadfast
supporter of Anglo-American military objectives. The Danish government
led by Prime Minister Anders Fogh Ramussen has sent Danish troops
to both Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan.
Three Danish warships have also set sail for the Eastern Mediterranean
to join the NATO armada of warships gathering off the Lebanese and
Syrian coastlines. The Peter Tordenskiold, a naval corvette, and
two Danish missile cruisers, the Raven and the Hawk, have been on
stand-by for military operations in the Eastern Mediterranean since
the end of the Anglo-American sponsored siege of Lebanon. The Danish
naval attachment has been waiting in Wilhelmshaven, a German naval
base, for a "go-ahead order" for nearly two weeks in early September,
2006.[24] The Danish government
is also talking about sending more troops to Afghanistan, which
would join the 2,000 troops to be dispatched by Romania and Poland
in early October, 2006.[25]
In
Lebanon, France is involved in military operations on the ground,
whereas Italian and German warships head the naval mission in the
Eastern Mediterranean. Some 2,000 French troops are slated to be
deployed in Lebanon. French tanks and armored units have helped
comprise "the most powerful Armor ever deployed by a United Nations
peacekeeping force" in history.[26]
Greek
warships are also part of the naval armada in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Ten Greek warships, which include diving units and navy helicopters,
have added their strength to the NATO naval force off Lebanon with
orders to "use force if needed." The Greek naval commitment is coming
at a reported cost of approximately 150,000 Euros for every week
of operation to the Greek government. The Greek warships will dock
in the southern port of Larnaca. Larnaca is on the southern side
of the island of Cyprus and faces Lebanon. This is until the naval
facilities of the Lebanese capital, Beirut, are deemed ready and
safe by the commanders of the naval armada.[27]
The
Netherlands is deploying alternating warships, with a reported 150
Dutch sailors. The Dutch warships will be comprised of one frigate
and a supply ship offering logistics support to the naval fleet
gathering in the Eastern Mediterranean. The Dutch deployment should
start sometime in October 2006 and will continue sailing the Eastern
Mediterranean until August, 2007. The Dutch Defense Minister has
also said that the Dutch commitment could be extended by an additional
extra 12 months.[28]
Belgium
is also dispatching 400 troops to Southern Lebanon. The Belgian
Defense Minister has been one of several defense officials visiting
Lebanon to make preparations for military operations in Lebanon.[29]
Other defense officials in liaison with Lebanon have been dispatched
by Italy and France.
Turkish
troops have not yet positioned themselves in Lebanon and face strong
domestic opposition. Turkey, an Israeli ally and NATO member, is
to send troops to Lebanon by the end of October, 2006.[30]
This is happening despite of the mass public outcry and opposition
in Turkey to the deployment of Turkish soldiers to Lebanon.
A
former Turkish high ranking civilian representative of NATO in Afghanistan,
Hikmet Cetin in a televised address attempted to reassure Turkish
public opinion, emphasizing that Turkish troops would be going to
Afghanistan, rather than to Lebanon:
...the
number of Turkish soldiers [in Afghanistan] has more than doubled
from 300 to 700 over the last month [September, 2006]. Ankara can
increase the number of soldiers in the upcoming period for the security
of Kabul [Afghanistan], but it won't send soldiers to clashes [in
South Lebanon]."[31]
Bulgaria,
another NATO member with troops in Afghanistan and (until 2005/2006)
in Iraq, will be sending naval and ground forces to Lebanon.[32]
In
turn, Britain will be dispatching a small contingent of troops to
South Lebanon.[33] The U.A.E.,
an Arab sheikdom, has been given a mandate to clear the Israeli
landmines and booby-traps left south of the Litani River,[34]
an important source of water in the Levant that Israel has always
had its eyes on. The U.A.E. has contracted its de-mining operations
in South Lebanon to a British private security firm. The British
security firm, "ArmorGroup International," has received a 5.6 million
U.S. dollar (2.9 million pound sterling) contract for a year of
work in South Lebanon.[35] ArmorGroup
has also been providing security for the United States military
in Iraq, the Persian Gulf, and Afghanistan, including protecting
U.S. Navy facilities in Bahrain. The British security firm has additionally
been providing security for oil and gas consortiums in Saudi Arabia,
Jordan, Kuwait, Nigeria, and the former Soviet Union, including
Kazakhstan and the Republic of Azarbaijan.[36]
As in the cases of Afghanistan and Anglo-American occupied Iraq,
private security firms are also starting to move into Lebanon, along
with NATO.
NATO
has "unofficially" moved in to fill the vacuum left by war in Lebanon
as it "officially" did in the case of Afghanistan. NATO signed a
military cooperation agreement with Israel in 2005. These NATO troops
could become an occupation force, as is the case in Afghanistan.[37]
Israeli
ground forces have not fully withdrawn from South Lebanon pursuant
to the U.N. Security Council resolution and ceasefire.
Meanwhile
Israeli vessels have turned over the responsibility for the enforcement
of the illegal naval embargo on Lebanon to NATO naval vessels and
warships.
This
naval embargo recalls the internationally illegal "No-fly Zones"
established over Iraq by the United States, Britain, and France,
which contributed to weakening Iraq in the years prior to the 2003
Anglo-American invasion.
The
crucial question is whether this naval embargo and militarization
of the Eastern Mediterranean is part of the preparations for future
military operation(s) directed against Syria. The illegal embargo
has U.N. approval. It is upheld as part of the monitoring of the
Lebanese coastline to enforce the entry of military supplies and
weapons into Lebanon.
Russia
and China Send Troops to Lebanon, A Symmetrical Strategic Move
The
Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China have also
deployed troops in Lebanon. Is this for peacekeeping or are there
other objectives of strategic nature?
A
Russian sapper (military field/combat engineer) battalion is also
being airlifted to Lebanon by the Russian Air Force.[38]
The Russian Defense Minister has said that the Russian sappers and
their battalion will start work in Lebanon at the start of October
2006. All that is formally needed is "an agreement on the status
of the combat engineer battalion with the Lebanese government."[39]
Russian
troops will be deployed near the city of Sidon (Saida) in South
Lebanon, off the shores of the Mediterranean. While Russian troops
are freshly entering Lebanon, there is also a Russian naval presence
on the Syrian seashore.[40] (See
Russian Base in Syria, a Symmetrical Strategic Move, July, 2006)
Unlike
their Russian allies, Chinese troops were present in Lebanon before
the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli attacks. The Chinese presence
in Lebanon was under the authority of a small U.N. peacekeeping
force. Around 200 Chinese military engineers already work for the
U.N. in South Lebanon clearing mines and unexploded ordnance. The
small U.N. force saw the death of one of its Chinese member at the
hands of Israeli attacks during the Anglo-American sponsored siege
of Lebanon. Approximately another 1,000 Chinese troops will be added
to the Chinese military presence in Lebanon. [41]
Chinese
and Russian forces will also be in close proximity to the Port of
Ceyhan and the energy route being opened in the Eastern Mediterranean.
This is a symmetrical action if one considers the U.S. military
presence and support for Taiwan as a means to control the strategic
oil route to China and Japan from the Middle East.[42]
Russia
and China are the two largest members of the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO). they are permanent members of the U.N. Security
Council, decisively opposed to Anglo-American initiatives in the
Middle East, the Korean Peninsula, and Sudan.
Additionally,
Russia and China together with Iran are challenging Anglo-American
oil interests in Central Asia and the Caspian Sea Basin.
Israel
is an extension of the Anglo-American alliance and also NATO through
a military pact with Turkey and the "NATO-Mediterranean Dialogue,"
including the June 29, 2004 Istanbul Cooperation Initiative.[43]
With the build-up and marshalling of troops from member states of
NATO, Russia and China could be sending troops in a deliberate symmetrical
move to Lebanon to establish a military equilibrium in the important
balance-of-power of the Levant and Eastern Mediterranean.
The
War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil: the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan Oil
Terminal
There
is undeniable international competition for energy resources in
the world. The Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal (also called
the Caspian-Mediterranean Oil Terminal) has an outlet on the Turkish
coast of the Eastern Mediterranean in close proximity to Syria and
Lebanon. The opening of this pipeline is geo-strategically an important
victory. This is a geo-strategic victory for the Anglo-American
alliance, Israel, the large oil corporations, and their partners,
but it is a geo-strategic set back for Russia, China, and Iran on
the other hand. It seems that the sovereignty of Lebanon has been
put into further danger with the opening of the strategic oil terminal.
The
occupation of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) has been followed
by the militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean, [44]
The July 2006 Israeli siege of Lebanon is intimately related to
the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Cehyan (BTC) Oil Terminal, the marshalling
of naval vessels in the Persian Gulf-Arabian Sea, and an anticipated
war against Iran and Syria.
Syria
is also taking steps to strengthen its military. Russia is helping
Syria build and upgrade its air defense systems. The Syrian military
has additionally made numerous orders for Russian and Iranian manufactured
warplanes and missiles. Belarus and China are also aiding the Syrian
military.
Professor
Michel Chossudovsky has given details on the Israeli war on Lebanon,
the militarization of the Eastern Mediterranean, and the international
rivalry for energy resources;
Is
there a relationship between the bombing of Lebanon and the inauguration
of the world's largest strategic pipeline, which will channel more
than a million barrels of oil a day to Western markets?
Virtually
unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tbilisi-Baku (BTC) oil
pipeline, which links the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean,
took place on the 13th of July [2006], at the very outset of the
Israeli sponsored bombings of Lebanon.
(...)
The
bombing of Lebanon is part of a carefully planned and coordinated
military road map. The extension of the war into Syria and Iran
has already been contemplated by U.S. and Israeli military planners.
This broader military agenda is intimately related to strategic
oil and oil pipelines. It is supported by the Western oil giants,
which control the pipeline corridors. In the context of the war
on Lebanon, it seeks Israeli territorial control over the East Mediterranean
coastline.
(The
War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, July 26, 2006)
Syria
and Lebanon must be subjugated if the United States and its partners
are to secure the Eastern Mediterranean coastline to expand the
oil terminal from Ceyhan, Turkey to Israel, lock out Russia and
China from securing international energy resources, and ultimately
creating a monopoly over world energy resources.
The
Eastern Mediterranean, a "Second Front" Guarded by NATO?
There
has been a significant build-up of military force, including naval
power, in Lebanon and the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean. This
force is composed of troops and naval vessels from several NATO
countries including Italy, Spain, France, Turkey, Germany, and the
Netherlands.
NATO's
"Operation Active Endeavor," implemented in the wake of 9/11 is
fully integrated into the U.S. sponsored "War on Terrorism". The
Operation is overseen by the Commander of "NATO Allied Naval Forces,
Southern Europe" based in Naples.
In
this context, a NATO naval task force of warships has been monitoring
the Eastern Mediterranean since late 2001, years before the Israeli
aerial siege of Lebanon (2006). This task force of NATO warships
has been "trained and prepared for a prolonged operation in the
Eastern Mediterranean since 2001."[45]
According
to one Israeli source, the NATO military presence in the Eastern
Mediterranean is part of the war plans pertaining to Syria and Iran:
"This
expectation [of a war launched against Iran and Syria] has brought
together the greatest sea and air armada Europe [NATO] has ever
assembled at any point on earth since World War II: two carriers
with 75 fighter-bombers, spy planes and helicopters on their decks;
15 warships of various types - 7 French, 5 Italian, 2-3 Greek.,
3-5 German, and 5 American; thousands of Marines - French, Italian
and German, as well as 1,800 U.S. Marines. It is improbably billed
as support for a mere [expected] 7,000 European soldiers who are
deployed in Lebanon to prevent the dwindling Israeli force of 4-5,000
soldiers and some 15-16,000 Hezbollah militiamen from coming to
blows as well as for humanitarian odd jobs. (...) So, if not for
Lebanon, what is this fine array of naval power really there for?
First, according to our military sources [in Israel], the European
participants feel the need of a strong naval presence in the eastern
Mediterranean to prevent a possible Iranian-U.S.-Israeli war igniting
an Iranian long-range Shahab missile attack on [American-NATO bases
used against Iran from eastern] Europe; second, as a deterrent to
dissuade Syria and Hezbollah from opening a second front against
America and Israel from their Eastern Mediterranean coasts." [46]
In
the case of a war with Syria and Iran, NATO forces in the Eastern
Mediterranean would no doubt play a decisive role. The Eastern Mediterranean
would become one of several fronts, which could include Iraq, Turkey,
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf.
NATO
Enlargement and the Caucasus
Just
as it did in Afghanistan, NATO has moved into Lebanon. Under a formal
peacekeeping mandate, NATO has become a de facto occupation force
that is party to the Anglo-American agenda.
There
are two other factors that fall into the NATO equation. The first
is the militarization of Georgia and the Republic of Azerbaijan,
two former republics of the Soviet Union which are firmly aligned
with NATO. Georgia occupies a strategic position with regard to
the control and protection of the oil pipeline corridors out of
the Caspian Sea Basin. It also constitutes a wedge between Russia,
Armenia, and Iran. Azerbaijan serves primarily as an oil source
in the Caspian Sea basin at the outset of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
pipeline.
It
is Georgia which is being propped up militarily to counter Russia,
Iran, and their ally Armenia.
A
strategic triangle is formed by Afghanistan in the east, the Caucasus
in the north, and the Levant in the west, with Iraq and Iran somewhat
in its center.
Georgia
is essential to gaining control of this area from the north. The
Caucasus region is also an interlinked front with the Middle East
and Central Asia that will become more active as the Anglo-American
military roadmap proceeds.
It
seems that rising tensions between Russia and Georgia are part of
this process. The civil unrest and conflicts in the Caucasus are
intimately related to the struggle to secure Middle Eastern and
Central Asian energy resources.
The
Balkans, the heart of Central Asia, and Sudan are another strategic
triangle of the Anglo-American military roadmap. The reconfiguration
of Yugoslavia and the entrance of states such as Bulgaria, Albania,
Montenegro, and Macedonia into the NATO sphere are also essential
steps in the Anglo-American roadmap.
Russia
has been outraged at the harboring of Chechen rebels in Georgia
and the Georgian government's collaboration with the United States
in undermining Russian influence in the Caucasus. Russia has fought
back and tried to counter Georgian and Anglo-American influence
in the Caucasus by supporting the Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence
movements. Additionally, border delimitation has become an issue
between Georgia and Russia. This has resulted in an uneasy stalemate,
but the situation seems to be changing. Russian troops have also
been leaving their bases in Georgia[47]
and tensions have been rising between the Russians on the one hand
and Georgia and NATO on the other.
September
2006 has seen relations on the brink of collapse. The Georgian government
has charged the Russian military with spying in Georgia and the
Russian Federation of trying to oust the Georgian government and
install a pro-Russian, anti-NATO government in its place. In addition,
South Ossetian forces have shot down a helicopter with the Georgian
Defense Minister on board and, days later, Georgian authorities
foiled what they claim was an attempt at a "coup d'etat" supported
by Russia, which is something that the Russian government denies.[48]
There
is also a striking parallel between peacekeeping operations in Georgia
and Lebanon. Both are bogus operations with a hidden agenda. In
Georgia it is Russian troops that are deployed as peacekeepers and
in Lebanon peacekeeping is "unofficially" dominated by NATO. The
Georgian Foreign Minister has said: "If we continue to drive the
situation [in Georgia] ... with existing actors and with the dominant
power of Russia ...we will end up in violence [war]," He has demanded
that Russian troops stationed in Georgia withdraw and has accused
Moscow of seeking to undermine the Georgian government.[49]
The
second factor is the rapid expansionist policy of NATO.
NATO
has been expanding eastward. It is now seeking entry for Georgia,
the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ukraine, and several other countries.[50]
The Russian Foreign Minister has told the Secretary-General of NATO
that the Reconfiguration of NATO military forces in Europe, as well
as the desire of the United States to deploy certain elements of
missile launching sites in Eastern Europe are the issues of concern
for us [the Russian Federation]."[51]
In
this regard, the Associated Press points to rising tensions between
the Russian Federation and NATO, pertaining to Georgia's membership
in NATO
Moscow
[the Russian government] denounced the move [to embrace Georgia
further into NATO] as a Cold War throwback that hurt Russian interests
and could further destabilize the Caucasus region. Russian Defense
Minister Sergei Ivanov threatened to send two divisions of Russian
troops to the border with Georgia to ensure that "Russia's security
won't be hurt if Georgia enters NATO."
The
strained relations between Russia and Georgia worsened Thursday
when Moscow recalled its ambassador, announced the recall of diplomats
and complained to the United Nations about Georgia's detention of
five Russian officers on spying charges. Mr. Ivanov called Georgia
a "bandit state."
Georgia
charged four of the officers on Friday with spying and was to put
them on trial later in the day, said Shota Khizanishvili, spokesman
for the Interior Minister. A fifth officer was released Friday (September,
2006).[52]
Formation
of a Eurasian Military Alliance?
Since
August 2006, Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan,
and Kyrgyztan have been holding joint military exercises and anti-terrorism
drills. These operations were conducted under the SCO and/or the
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) (with the involvement
of the Commonwealth of Independent States, CIS). These military
exercises were conducted at a time when Iran was also involved in
major war games.
- Russia and Belarus held joint military exercises in 2006 (June
17-25)[53]
- U.S. military operations and war games were held with Bulgaria
and Romania, in the Balkans (July-August, 2006)[54]
- Iranian War Games started on August 19, 2006[55]
- Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Anti-terrorism
exercises including Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan
were held in late August 2006[56]
- China and Kazakhstan held joint anti-terrorism drills also in
late August (start August 23/24, 2006)[57]
- Russia, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan held joint anti-terrorism
drills (September 19-23, 2006)[58]
- China and Tajikistan hold their first joint military exercise
(September 22-23, 2006)[59]
- CIS and Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Anti-Terrorism
Drills in Armenia (September 26-28, 2006)[60]
The
initiation of a "Eurasian Energy Club" was the practical outcome
on September 15, 2006 for the SCO during a conference held in Dushanbe,
Tajikistan.[61] This is a goal
that cannot be achieved unless Iran is a full member of the SCO.
IRNA
quoted the Uzbek Deputy Prime Minister, Rustam Azimov, as saying
that "the economic projects, on which [SCO] agreements were reached
during the International Shanghai Conference [SCO], cannot be implemented
without the cooperation of Iran, as a significant regional country."[62]
Mongolia
is also set to become a full member of the SCO. Mongolia, Iran,
India, and Pakistan are all observer members of the SCO. Armenia,
a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and
the CIS, and Serbia, a historical ally of Russia, are potential
candidates for the SCO. Armenia has also made it clear that it has
no intention of joining the E.U. or NATO.[63]
Belarus has also expressed interest in joining the SCO as a full
member state.[64]
The
expansion of the SCO and the complete inclusion of Iran as a full
member has been challenged by the Helsinki Commission (the Commission
on Security and Cooperation in Europe) during an inquiry (September
26, 2006) into the impact of the SCO on Anglo-American objectives
and U.S. influence in Central Asia.
The
expansion of the SCO was said to be unlikely because the "economic
mission of the SCO seems ill-defined" and that the organization
is not likely to add new members who may end up competing with Russia
and China for control of Central Asia. It was also pointed out during
the Helsinki Commission hearing that, "They [the members of the
SCO] are bound together by a shared set of security interests and
a shared set of perceived risk[s]."
"Security
interests and perceived risks" being connotations for the growing
threat of Anglo-American intrusion into the former Soviet republics
of Central Asia
The
war games held in the former Soviet Union and Central Asia[65]
were dominated by Russia and China. They were conducted under the
disguise of fighting "terrorism, extremism, and separatism." Terrorism,
extremism, and separatism are critical arenas of cooperation for
all member states.[66] What
is the hidden agenda? Are these war games related in any way to
U.S. war preparations?
Terrorism,
extremism, and separatism are nurtured by Anglo-American covert
intelligence operations including sabotage and terrorist attacks
by Special Forces. Inciting ethnic, ideological, and sectarian tension
and separatist movements have been a traditional hallmark of Anglo-American
strategy in the Middle East, the Balkans, India, Southeast Asia,
the former Soviet Union and Africa.
As
for the manipulation and creation of extremism, Afghanistan is testimony
of this strategy. Afghanistan is where the Pakistani ISI and the
United States helped create the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union.
The United States, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia have also worked in
supporting extremist movements in the former Soviet Union. This
is one of the reasons that the Iranian government has remained silent
in aiding or acknowledging religious based ideologues or separatist
movements in the Caucasus and the former Soviet Union, including
Chechnya.
Kurdistan:
The Seeds of Balkanization and Finlandization?
Both
the United States and Israel have been covertly training a number
of Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq. Iran and Syria have accused
Israel of establishing a military presence in Iraqi Kurdistan. Israel
has also trained Anglo-American special forces in assassination
missions and the formation of "hunter-killer teams" in Iraq.[67]
Magdi
Abdelhadi, an Arab and Middle Eastern affairs analyst has written:
Ever
since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began over three years ago [in
2003], Arab journalists have been speaking of Israelis operating
inside the autonomous region of Kurdistan [in Northern Iraq].
They
said this was evidence that toppling that Saddam Hussein was only
the first chapter in a wider American-Israeli conspiracy to eliminate
threats to their strategic interests and re-draw the map of the
Middle East [vis-Ã -vis a military roadmap].
Syria
and Iran, which have common borders with Kurdish areas, are believed
to be the primary targets.[68]
There
are deliberate attempts to manufacture or create civil strife and
division within the countries of the Middle East. The underlying
objectives are balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification).[69]
Kurdistan
is the geographic heart of the contemporary Middle East and the
Gordian knot holding all its mosaic of states and people together.
Kurdistan is also strategically the land-bridge connecting Syria
and the Eastern Mediterranean with Iran. The Kurdish people have
been continuously manipulated and deceived by the United States.
The deliberate manipulation of the Kurdish people by the United
States and Israel could deal a severe and chaotic blow to the stability
of Kurdistan and the national unity of Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq,
and by extension the neighbors of these countries.
Moreover,
the balkanization of Iraq could set in motion a domino-effect, which
could have an impact in the entire Middle East and beyond. The United
States has created the conditions for social division within Iraq.
Dividing Iraqi society weakens the resistance movement to the Anglo-American
military occupation. Creating sectarian and ethnic divisions in
Iraqi society has a direct bearing on U.S. war plans pertaining
to Iran and Syria. The premise is that Iraqis would be too busy
fighting each other to offer significant support to Syria and Iran.
The
balkanization of Iraq is also consistent with Anglo-American objectives
for the "Eurasian Corridor" and the "Yinon Plan[70]"
for the Greater Middle East.
Both
objectives overlap and depend on a partnership between the United
States, Britain, and Israel. These objectives rely on initial regime
change(s) from within a targeted state through the triggering of
ethnic and sectarian conflicts. This strategy is also being used
against Russia, China, and Central Asia. The ultimate objective
is the creation of a new set of Kuwait-like or Bahrain-like mini-states
or Anglo-American protectorates in the Middle East and the former
Soviet Union that can easily be controlled by the U.S., Britain,
and Israel.
In
an interview with Der Spiegel, the Syrian President said
that the Middle East was teetering on the brink of chaos and conflict.
When asked about the partition or balkanization of Anglo-American
occupied Iraq, the Syrian President said:
"It
would be harmful, not just for Iraq, but for the entire region,
extending from Syria to the [Persian] Gulf and into Central Asia.
Imagine snapping a necklace and all the pearls fall to the ground.
Almost all these countries have natural dividing lines, and when
ethnic and religious partition occurs in one country, it'll soon
happen elsewhere. It would be like the end of the Soviet Union-only
far worse. Major wars, minor wars, no one will be capable of keeping
the consequences under control."[71]
The
problem can further be compounded. A war with Syria could spill
over and ignite further conflicts in Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon,
while also affecting Turkey, Cyprus, and the entire Arab World.
A
war with Iran or any balkanization affecting Iran would also contribute
to destabilizing the Caucasus, Turkey, and Central Asia which all
have ethnic and cultural ties with Iran. This includes North Ossetia-Alania,
Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, which are part of the South Federal
District of the Russian Federation.
A
war with Iran could spill over into the ethnically diverse Caucasus
with serious and unpredictable ramifications for Russia.
The
Caucasus is intimately interlinked with Iran. The conflicts between
Armenia and the Republic of Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh
region, the internal conflicts in Georgia over South Ossetia and
Abkhazia, and the fighting in Chechnya and Dagestan could all light
up again. These conflicts would not only threaten Russia's national
security, they would also affect the SCO, which is integrated with
China, Russia and several former Soviet republics as well as the
CSTO..
Connect-the-Dots:
All the Pieces Coming Together?
There
is an evident military build-up of conventional, ground, air, naval,
and nuclear forces in and around the Middle East and Central Asia.
It includes the mobilization of British troops on the Iranian border[72],
and the extension of military tours of service in Anglo-American
occupied Iraq and NATO garrisoned Afghanistan.[73]
The 1st Brigade of 1st Armored Division, a 4,000 man unit which
is operating in the Al-Anbar province of Iraq, bordering Syria,
has had their tour of duty extended. They are not the first group
of American or British soldiers to have their tours of duty extended
in Iraq or Afghanistan. The brigade has about 4,000 soldiers in
Iraq.[74] They were scheduled
to be in Iraq for a maximum of 12 months, but their tours have been
extended repeatedly like other military units. The U.S. Army has
also extended the tour of the Alaska-based 172nd Striker Brigade,
an army unit with over 3,500 troops, several times.[75]
Many
of the Arab dictatorships will also secretly support the Anglo-American
alliance. They will watch as Syria and Iran are attacked and Lebanon,
Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are further devastated by conflict.
The pro-U.S. governments of Saudi Arabia, the Arab sheikdoms, Egypt,
and Jordan are supportive of the U.S. "military roadmap", despite
the fact that the people in these countries are firmly opposed to
the U.S. led war. The hopes of a Palestinian state have also been
abandoned by their leaders.
They
have demonstrated this in their involvement against Iraq before
and after the 2003 Anglo-American invasion. They have tacitly accepted
the oppression of the Palestinian people, as well as the Israeli
invasion and bombing of Lebanon (phrased in Lebanon as the "Arab
conspiracy against Lebanon"). There have been media reports that
Saudi Arabia and Israel have also been conducting secret talks in
regards to Iran and the broader Middle East.[76]
Romania
and Bulgaria are already important hubs for Anglo-American military
operations in Eurasia extending from the Balkans to the Middle East
and Central Asia. Both states are also important partners of the
Anglo-American alliance. According to Lawrence Korb in a 2003 article
in The New York Times:
The
Pentagon is smitten with Romania. And Poland. And Bulgaria too.
The Defense Department is considering closing many, if not all,
of its bases in Western Europe - which are primarily in Germany
- and to shift its troops to Spartan new sites in the former Soviet
bloc. Already we [the public] are told that the First Armored Division,
now on the ground in Iraq, will not return to the bases in Germany
it left in April [2003]. And Gen. James Jones, the head of the European
Command [of the United States], said this month that all 26 Army
and Air Force installation in Germany, except for the Air Force
base at Ramstein, might be closed. In effect this could mean transferring
five army brigades, some 25, 000 troops, to the East [meaning Eastern
Europe; Bulgaria and Romania].
(The
Pentagon's Eastern Obsession, NYT, July 30, 2003)
In
retrospect the Pentagon's decision to move eastward was strategically
correct and based on the premise of the eastward shift of Anglo-American
military operations. The situation in the former Yugoslavia and
the Balkans was placated in the second half of the 1990s. With the
start of 2001 the time had come to advance operations further eastward.
NATO
has also been in liaison with Washington, London and Tel Aviv. Anglo-American
and Israeli interests have been served by NATO. NATO either formally
or informally has been sending troops to assist in the "occupational
phase" of all Anglo-American operations after the "blitzkriegs"
or "initial military phases." NATO and memb
